Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Remarks on Books:

G. V. Plekhanov.N. G. Chernyshevsky. 
	Shipovnik Publishing House. 
	St. Petersburg, 1910

[221]... The view of art asplay, supplemented 
		by the view of play as a “child of labour,” sheds 
		a very bright light on the essence and history of 
		art. It makes it possible for the first time to view 
		them from a materialist standpoint. We know 
		that, at the very beginning of his literary activity, 
		Chernyshevsky made an attempt, which was most 
		successful in its own way, at applying Feuerbach’s 
		materialist philosophy to aesthetics. We have 
		devoted a special work to describing that attempt.[1]So we shall merely say here that although it was

most successful in its own way, that attempt 
		is affected, in the same way as Chernyshevsky’s 
		views on history, by the main shortcoming of 
		Feuerbach’s philosophy: insufficient elaboration 
		of its historical, or to be more exact, dialectical 
		aspect. And it is just because this aspect was not 
		elaborated in the philosophy assimilated by him 
		that Chernyshevsky could overlook the great 
		importance of the concept of play for a materialist

interpretation of art....

[236]... “Lasting enjoyment is afforded to man

by reality alone; only those desires are of serious 
		importance which are based on reality; success 
		[237] may be expected only from hopes evoked 
		by reality, and only from those deeds which are 
		accomplished with the help of forces and circum- 
		stances offered by reality.”[3]

Such was the new notion of “reality.” Cherny- 
		shevsky had Feuerbach in mind when he said that 
		it had been formed by modern thinkers from the

obscure allusions of transcendental philosophy. 
		And he expounded Feuerbach’s concept of reality

quite correctly. Feuerbachsaid that sensuousness 
	    or actuality is identical with truth, i.e., that the 
		object in its true sense is given only by sensation.

Speculative philosophy supposed that ideas of 
		objects based only on sense experience do not 
		correspond to the real nature of the objects and 
	    must be verified with the aid of pure thought,

i.e., thought not based on sense experience. Feuer- 
		bach decisively rejected this idealistic view. 
		He asserted that conceptions of objects based on 
	    our sense experience fully correspond to the nature 
		of these objects. The only trouble is that our 
		imagination frequently distorts these conceptions,

which, therefore, come into contradiction with 
		oursense experience. Philosophy shoulddrive out

from our conceptions the fantastic element that 
		distorts them; it should bring them into accord 
		with sense experience. It must return mankind 
		to a contemplation of real objects undistorted by 
		fancy, such as prevailed in ancient Greece. And 
		insofar as mankind passes to such contemplation, 
		it returns to itself, because people who submit to 
		figments of the imagination can themselves be 
	    only imaginary and not real beings.In the words 
		of Feuerbach, the essence of man is sensuousness, 
		i.e., actuality, and not imagination and not ab- 
		straction.The task of philosophy and science in 
		general is to restore reality to its rightful place. 
		But if that is so, it follows of itself that the tasks 
		of aesthetics as a branch of science are also to 
		restore reality to its rightful place and combat the 
		imaginary element in man’s notions. It was on 
		this conclusion from Feuerbach’s philosophy that 
	    Chernyshevsky’s aesthetic views were based; it 
		constituted the main idea of his dissertation. And 
		there is no doubt that Belinsky had the same 
		conclusion in mind when, in his [238] second but 
		last annual review of literature, he described the 
		concept of “reality” as a new one....

[242]... Everyone knows that the criticism of 
		the sixties, the criticism of Dobrolyubov for 
		example, often crossed over into journalism. 
		Hence, in speaking of Chernyshevsky, we shall 
		not so much present proofs of this thought as 
		illustrations of it. In 1858 Chernyshevsky’s article 
		“The Russian at a Rendezvous. Reflections on 
		Turgenev’s storyAsya” appeared in the review 
		section ofAtheneum, No. 3. This article is one 
		of the most brilliant examples of journalistic 
		criticism. Very little, almost nothing, is said in 
	    the article about Turgenev ’s actual story, which 
		Chernyshevsky calls “practically the only good 
		new story.” The author merely draws attention 
		to the scene in which the hero of the story makes 
		his declaration of love to Asya, and in connection 
		with this scene, he indulges in “reflections” The 
		reader will recall, of course, that at the critical 
		moment Turgenev’s hero turned coward and 
		withdrew. It Is this circumstance that caused 
		Chernyshevsky to “reflect.” He notes that indeci- 
		sion and cowardice are the distinctive features not 
		only of this hero, but of most of the heroes of 
		our best literary works. He recalls Rudin, Beltov, 
		and the tutor of Nekrasov’s Sasha, and sees the 
		same features in all of them. He does not blame 
		the authors of the novels on this account since 
		they were only recording what is met with at 
		every step in real life. There is no manliness in 
		Russian people, therefore the characters in the 
		novels have none either. And Russian people 
		have no manliness because they are not in the

habit of taking part in public affairs. “When 
		we go into society, we see around us people in 
		uniforms and civilian morning or evening dress;

these people are five and a half or six feet tall, 
		and sometimes even more; they grow or shave 
		the hair on their cheeks, above their upper lip and 
		[243] on their chin; and we imagine we are looking 
		at men. This is a total error, an optical illusion, 
		a hallucination, nothing more. Without acquiring 
		the habit of elementary participation in civil 
		affairs, without acquiring the feelings of a citizen, 
		the male child grows up and becomes middle-aged, 
		and then an elderly being of the masculine gender, 
		but he does not become a man or, at any rate, 
		not a man of a noble character.”[4]Among humane, 
		educated people, the absence of noble manliness 
		strikes one still more than among ignorant people, 
		because the humane, educated man likes to talk 
		about important matters. He talks with enthusiasm 
		and eloquence, but only until it becomes a matter 
		of passing from words to deeds. “So long as there 
		is no question of action, but merely the need to 
		fill up empty hours, an empty mind, or an empty 
		heart, with talk and dreams, the hero is very glib; 
		but once it is a matter of expressing his feelings 
	    plainly and exactly, the majority of the heroes 
	    immediately begin to waver and feel tongue-tied. 
		A few, the most courageous, somehow contrive 
		to muster their forces and stammer something 
		that provides a vague idea of their thoughts. 
		But just attempt to take their wishes at face 
		value and say to them: ‘you want so-and-so; 
		we’re very glad; begin to do something about it 
		and you’ll have our support‘—if such a remark 
		is made one half of the very brave heroes faint, 
        the other begin to gruffly reproach you for putting 
        them in an awkward position; they begin to say 
        that they did not expect such proposals from you, 
        they are quite at a loss and cannot think properly 
        because it is not possible to do so at a moment’s 
        notice and, moreover, they are honest people, 
        and not only honest but very mild, and they do 
        not want to cause you any unpleasantness, and 
        that, in general, it is not possible, really, to trouble 
		oneself about all that is said merely from having

nothing to do, and that it is best not to undertake 
	    anything at all, because everything involves 
		trouble and inconvenience, and at present nothing

good can come of it, because, as already said, 
	    they never for a moment expected, or anticipated,and soon and so forth.”[5]

One can say that the portrait is painted with 
	    a master’s hand. However, the master was not 
	    a literary critic, but a journalist.

[245]... As for the requirements of the period, 
		they consisted, to his mind, [246] in concessions 
		to the peasantry. Chernyshevsky exhorted the 
		“estimable” gentlemen with this quotation from 
		the Gospel: “Agree with thine adversary quickly, 
		whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any

time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and 
		the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be 
		cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, thou 
		shalt by no means come out thence, till thou 
		hast paid the uttermost farthing.” (Mat., Oh. V, 
		verses 25 and 26).[7]

It is self-evident that every theoretical conclu- 
		sionconcerning the capacity of a given social class 
		or stratum for definite practical actionalways 
	    requires a certain degree of verification by expe- 
		rience, and that, consequently, it can be considered 
	    trustworthy a priori only within certain, more or 
		less broad limits.Thus, for example, it was possible

with complete assurance to foretell that even 
		the most educated section of the nobility would 
		refuse to sacrifice their interests for the sake of 
		the peasants. Such a prediction in no way required 
		practical verification. But when it was necessary to 
		etermine to what extent the educated nobility 
		were capable of making concessions to the peas- 
		antryin their owninterests, then no one could 
		say in advance with absolute certainty: they will 
		not go in that direction beyond such-and-such 
		a limit. Here it was always possible to assume that 
		under certain circumstances the educated nobility 
		would go a little further, after arriving at a some- 
		what more correct understanding of its own inter- 
		ests. Being practical, as Chernyshevsky was in this 
		case, he not only could but had to endeavour to 
		persuade the nobility that certain concessions to 
		the freed peasants were required in its own in- 
		terests. Thus, what might have seemed to consti- 
		tute a contradiction in his article—the demand for 
		a judicious and resolute step on the part of people 
		whose incapacity for decision and wisdom is here 
		admitted and explained as a necessary product of 
		circumstances—was actually no contradiction at

all.Such imaginary contradictions can also be 
		found in the political practice of people who take 
		their stand on the firm ground of the materialist 
		explanation of history.However, here it is neces-

sary to make a very essential reservation. When

a materialist applies his theoretical [247] con- 
		clusions in practice with a certain amount of cau- 
		tion, he can nevertheless guarantee that his con- 
		clusions contain a certain element of the most 
		indisputable certainty. And this is because, when 
		he says: “everything depends on circumstances,”

he knows from what side one must expect the 
		appearance of the new circumstances that will 
		change the will of people in the direction he desires; 
		he knows quite well that, in the final analysis, 
		they are to be expected from the side of “econom- 
		ics,” and that the truer his analysis of the socio- 
		economic life of society, the more trustworthy 
		his prediction concerning the future development 
		of society. Not so with the idealist, who is con- 
		vinced that “opinions rule the world.” If “opin- 
		ions” are the basic cause of social movement, 
		then the circumstances on which the further devel- 
	    opment of society depends are linked chiefly to 
		the conscious activity of people, while the possi- 
		bility of any practical influence on this activity 
		is dependent on the greater or lesser ability of 
		people to think logically and master the new 
		truths discovered by philosophy or science. But this 
		ability depends itself on circumstances. Thus, the 
		idealist who recognises the materialist truth that 
		the character and also, of course, the views of man, 
		depend on circumstances, finds himself in a vicious 
		circle: views depend on circumstances, circum- 
		stances on views. The thought of the “enlightener” 
		in theory has never broken out of this vicious circle. 
		In practice the contradiction was usually solved 
		by a strong appeal to all thinking people, indepen- 
		dently of the circumstances under which such 
		people were living and acting. What we are now 
		saying may appear unnecessary and for that reason 
		a boring digression. But in point of fact this digres- 
		sion was essential for us. It will help usto under-

standthe nature of the journalistic criticism of 
		the sixties.

Since the hopes of the “enlightener” are pinned 
		on the intellect and good will of thinking people, 
		i.e., in effect of the “enlighteners” themselves, 
		it is obvious that critics desiring to support these 
		people will demand from fiction above all anexactdepiction of social life with all its pros 
		and cons, with its “positive” and “negative” phenom- 
	    ena. Only an exact portrayal of all aspects of life 
		can furnish an “enlightener” with the factual data 
		needed by him for passing judgment on that 
		life....

[253]... However, N. Uspensky used to express 
		himself even more emphatically. For example, 
		he wrote: “Nothing is to be expected from the 
		present-day peasants who not so long ago were the 
		victims of serfdom:—they will not be resurrect- 
		ed!... It is unlikely that medicine will ever cure 
		atrophy, because the disease is based onorganicdamage....”[8]It was quite difficult for the 
		“people of the seventies” to agree with this. It was 
		chiefly this that gave rise to the unfavourable 
		attitude of the critics of that epoch towards 
		N. V. Uspensky.

The reader will perhaps ask: but was it easy for 
	    Chernyshevsky himself to agree with N. V. Uspen- 
	    sky’s completely hopeless view of “the present-day 
	    peasants,” since Chernyshevskyevidently considered

possible at that time a broad movement of the 
		people who were dissatisfied with the conditions 
		of the abolition of serfdom.To this we reply that,

obviously, this would not have been easy for him 
	    if he considered himself bound to agree uncondi- 
		tionally with N. V. Uspensky. But that is precisely 
		the point—he did not agree unconditionally with 
		him. He considered N. V. Uspensky’s essays quite 
		truthful; but he did not draw a hopeless conclu- 
		sion from them. He said: “Routine dominates the 
		ordinary course of life of common people; and 
		among the plain folk, like in all other social- 
		estates, the routine is just as dull and banal as in 
		all other social-estates. Mr. Uspensky’s merit is to 
		have had the courage to depict for us, without con- 
		cealment or adornment, the routine thoughts 
		and actions, feelings and customs of plain 
		people. The picture is not at all attractive: at 
		every step nonsense and dirt, pettiness and 
		dullness.

“But do not be in a hurry to draw conclusions 
		from this regarding the validity or non-validity 
		of your hopes, if you wish to alleviate the lot of 
		the people; or of your misgivings, if you were so 
		far concerned about the dullness and inertia of 
		the people. Take the commonest, most colourless, 
		weak-willed, shallow person; no matter how drab 
		and petty the life he leads, it has in it moments

of a totally different [254]shade, moments of 
		energetic efforts, courageous decisions.The same 
		is also encountered in the history of every na- 
		tion.“[9]

The circumstances, on which everything depends 
		in the last resort, may take such a turn that even 
	    an apathetic mass will become capable of vigorous 
		effort and courageous decision. While waiting 
		for the moment when the circumstances take 
		a favourable turn, one must attentively study the 
		backward mass. The initiative in taking courageous 
		decisions will never come from the mass of the 
		populace; hut one has to know the character of the 
		people making up this mass “in order to know 
		in what way initiative may stimulate them.”[10]And the more accurately fiction represents the 
		character of the mass of the people, the more it 
		will facilitate the task of those who, under favour- 
		able circumstances, will have to take the initiative 
		in making great decisions.

Now we shall ask the reader to recall that in 
		one of the theses of his dissertation Chernyshevsky, 
		emphasising the portrayal of life as the chief 
		characteristic of art, adds: “works of art often have 
		another significance—they explain life; often they 
		also provide a verdict on the phenomena of life.” 
		What we have quoted, if only from one article 
		“Is This Not the Beginning of a Change?”, clearly 
		shows to what extent literary criticism in the 
		person of Chernyshevsky was inclined to value 
		the portrayal of life chiefly as material for inter- 
		preting it and judging it (for passing a verdict on 
		the phenomena of life). The same tendency of 
		Chernyshevsky manifests itself definitely in all 
		his other literary articles. Here is what he says, 
		for example, in a review of a collection of poetry 
		by A. N. Pleshcheyev (Sovremennik, 1861, 
		No. 3).

He recalls with displeasure the time when our 
		critics treated Pleshcheyev with scorn and even 
		ill-will. “It seems monstrous now,” he says. “Surely 
		the noble sentiments and noble ideas which breath- 
		ed from every page of Mr. Pleshcheyev’s booklet 
	    were not so commonplace in the Russian poetry of 
		the time as to be dismissed with scorn. When, 
		indeed, is such a thing possible and permissible?” 
		Pleshcheyev, according to him, had no great poetic 
		talent and his aspirations [255] and hopes were 
		quite vague. But he did possess great sincerity and 
		as for expressing his hopes with greater preci- 
		sion, he could not do so for reasons beyond his 
		control.

[262]... Pisarev possessed tremendous literary

talent. But for all the enjoyment that the unpre- 
		judiced reader derived from the literary brilliancy 
		of Pisarev’s articles, it must be admitted that 
		“Pisarevism” was a sort of reductio ad absurdum 
		of the idealism of our “enlighteners...”

[266]... Some of Mikhailovsky’s sociological 
		articles have now been translated into French and, 
		if we are not mistaken, also into German. Pre- 
		sumably, however, they will not make his name 
		very well known in Furope. But it is very possible 
		that they will earn praise from one or two of those 
		European thinkers who are going “back to Kant!” 
	    out of hatred of Marxism. In spite of the opinion 
		of our latest historian of literature, there can be

nothing flattering in these praises. But extremely 
		worth noting is theirony of history which makes 
		a theoretical weapon of reaction out of what was 
		an innocent theoretical mistake in a more or less 
		progressive utopism.

[280]... His article goes on to tell of the strange 
		and often ridiculous acts to which the Saint- 
		Simonists were driven in their extreme exaltation. 
		He calls them drawing-room heroes overcome by 
		a fit of philanthropy. But he qualifies this severe 
		judgment of them. The Saint-Simonist movement 
		was the first expression of the concept of trans- 
		forming society, and that first expression is of great

[281] historic significance. It indicates that it is 
	    high time society concerned itself with the ideas 
		of reform that first appeared in the unsatisfactory 
		form of Saint-Simonism.

In conclusion, Chernyshevsky says of reformist

ideas: “We shall soon see that they have begun 
		to appear in more reasonable forms and to reach

people for whom they are no longer adelightful 
		amusementbut a matter of necessity, andwhenthat classwhich theSaint-Simonistswished to 
	    humbugbeginsreasonably to concern itself about

its own well-being,then, probably, life on earth 
	    will be better for it than it is at present.“[11]This

is a highly important remark. It shows that in his 
		views on the future of West-European socialism 
		Chernyshevskycame very close to the theory of the 
		class struggle. But we know already of the role 
		which this theory has played in his views on history. 
		Sometimes it helped him to explain very successful- 
	    lycertain isolated historical 
		phenomena; but he looked on it as a rather 
		serious obstacle to progress instead of a necessary 
	    condition for it in a society divided into classes. 
		The reader will recall that Cbernyshevsky saw 
		the weak development of the class struggle in 
		Spain as an earnest of that country’s progressive 
	    development in the future. In his comments on 
		events in France in 1848, as well as in the passage 
		we have just quoted, he seems to incline to the 
		idea that the emancipation movement of the 
		proletariat is now becoming the motive force of 
		social progress in Western Europe. But with him 
		this idea remains one of the germs of a materialist 
		interpretation of history to which we have repeated- 
		ly called the reader’s attention in dealing with our 
	    author’s views on history....

[282]... He explains the backwardness of the 
		“ordinary people” of Europe as being due to the 
		fact that well-known scientific conceptions have 
		not yet reached the people. When they do, when 
		“ordinary people” become acquainted with philo- 
		sophical views “corresponding to their needs,” then 
		the triumph of the new principles in the social 
		life of Western Europe will not be far off.[12]Cherny- 
		shevsky does not ask himself the question whether

any phenomenaexist in thislife that could provide 
		anobjective guaranteethat the new philosophical 
	    ideas will, in fact, ultimately reach the “ordinary 
	    people.”He has no need forsucha guarantee

because, as he sees it, the very nature of these 
		principles, and also the nature of man, quite 
		sufficiently guarantee the triumph of the new 
	    principles....

[289]... Chernyshevsky regards the question of 
		socialism, as he does all the other general questions 
		of historical development, from the point of view 
		ofidealism. And this idealist attitude to the 
	    most important historical phenomena was typical 
		of the socialism of all countries in the utopian 
		period of its development. This feature of utopian 
	    socialism is of such tremendous importance that

it is necessary to dwell on it—without fear of 
	    a certain amount of repetition, which may very 
		well occur in the process.

[313]. ..“Let us suppose,” he says, turning to his 
	    favourite method of explanation by means of a 
	    “parable”—“let us suppose that I was interested 
		in taking steps to preserve the provisions from the 
		store of which your dinner is prepared. Obviously, 
		if I did so out of affection for you, then my zeal 
		would he based on the assumption that the provi- 
		sions belong to you and that the dinner being pre- 
		pared from them is nourishing and good for you. 
		Just imagine my feelings when I learn that the 
		provisions do not really belong to you and that 
		for every dinner prepared from them you pay 
		money which is not only more than the dinner 
		itself is worth but which, in general, you cannot 
		pay without extremely embarrassing yourself. 
		What ideas will enter my head in the face of such 
		strange discoveries?... How stupid I was to hother 
		about a matter when the conditions for its use- 
		fulness were not guaranteed! Who but a dolt can

bother about the preservation of property in 
		certain hands, without first being assured that 
		the property will remain in those hands and on 
		advantageous terms?... Rather let all these provi- 
		sions, which only cause harm to the person I love, 
		he lost! Rather let the whole matter, which only 
	    causes your ruin, vanish! Sorrow for you, shame 
		on account of my own stupidity—that is what

I feel.”[13]

[315]... Credit is due to Chernyshevsky for the 
		fact that, at the very beginning of his literary 
		activity, he displayed, in his comments on the 
		land commune, far more consideration than many 
		a “Russian socialist” even in the mid-nineties, 
		when to all appearances, only the blind could fail 
	    to see that our vaunted “age-long foundations”

were crumbling. As far back as April 1857 he 
		wrote: but “there is no concealing the fact that 
		Russia, which until now has had a small share in 
	    economic progress, is being rapidly swept along 
		with it, and our way of life, until now scarcely 
		affected by the economic laws which reveal their 
		power only in times of increased economic and 
		commercial activity, is beginning rapidly to be 
		subjected to them. Perhaps it will not be long 
		before we, too, are drawn into the sphere of full 
		operation of the law of competition.”[14]

This is precisely what the theoreticians of our 
		Narodism ever since sought to conceal from them- 
		selves and their readers for so long and with so 
		much care. What the Scriptures say is true: star 
		differs from star in glory.... Being convinced that 
		our country lacks the conditions for making com- 
		munal land tenure a source of well-being for the 
		people, Chernyshevsky was to see that his sym- 
		pathetic attitude to the commune bore in fact very 
		little similarity to the Slavophils’ sympathetic 
		view of it. In his article “On the Causes of the Fall 
		of Rome,” he says that although the commune 
		could contribute to the further development of 
		Russia, it was nonetheless ridiculous to take 
		pride in it, because [316] it was after all a sign 
		of our economic backwardness. He offers an exam- 
	    ple: European engineers, he says, now use applied 
		mechanics to construct suspension bridges. But it 
		appears that in a backward Asiatic country—he 
		does not quite remember which one—local engineers 
		have long since been building suspension bridges 
		on suitable sites. Does that mean that applied 
		mechanics in Asia may be placed on a footing 
		with that in Europe? There are bridges and bridges, 
		and the Asian engineers’ suspension bridge is 
	    infinitely inferior to its European counterpart. 
		To be sure, when European engineers arrive in the 
		Asiatic country which has long been familiar with 
		suspension bridges, they will find it all the easier

to convince a mandarin that the suspension bridge 
		of today is not a godless invention. But nothing 
		more than that. Despite its suspension bridges, 
		the Asiatic country will remain a backward country 
		all the same while Europe will still be its preceptor. 
		The same holds true for the Russian commune. 
		Perhaps the latter will promote the development

of our country; but the chief stimulus will come 
		nonetheless from the West, and it does not really 
		befit us to renovate the world, even by means of 
		the commune....

[317]... He who tries to obtain an idea of Cherny- 
		shevsky’s political views on the basis of his writ- 
		ings, at first feels a little embarrassed, that is, 
		if he himself is not indifferent [318] to politics. 
		Indeed, the man who next to Beliusky was the 
		most colourful exponent of progressive tendencies 
		in our literature, at first glance appears to be 
		politically indifferent. And it is not because he has 
		employed a few unfortunate expressions, nor be- 
		cause of a slip of the pen, but on account of the 
        general principles by which he is sometimes guided 
		in judging the more important phenomena of 
		West-European life. For evidence of this we refer 
		to the article “Party Struggles in France Under 
		Louis XVIII and Charles X” (Sovremennik, 1858, 
		Nos. .8 and 9). There we read:

“The fundamental desires, the basic urges, of 
		liberals and democrats are essentially different. 
		Democrats intend to abolish as far as possible 
		the predominance of the upper classes over the 
		lower in the state structure; on the one hand to 
		reduce the power and wealth of the upper social- 
		estates, on the other to give more weight and 
		well-being to the lower social-estates. How to change 
		the laws in this sense and to support the new 
		structure of society is almost a matter of indiffer- 
		ence to them. On the other hand, the liberals can- 
		not at all agree to give the predominance in society

to the lower social-estates because owing to their 
		lack of education and material poverty, these 
		social-estates are indifferent to the interests that 
		are of the utmost importance to the liberal party, 
		namely, the right of free speech and a constitu- 
		tional system. For the democrat, our Siberia, where 
		the ordinary people are well off, stands far higher 
		than England, where the majority of the people 
	    suffer great privations. Out of all political institu- 
		tions, the democrat is irreconcilably hostile to 
		only one—aristocracy; the liberal almost always 
		finds that only with a certain degree of aristocracy 
		can society attain the liberal system. Therefore 
		the liberals are usually the mortal enemies of the 
		democrats, and say that democracy leads to despo- 
		tism and is fatal to freedom.”[15]

[319]... Chernyshevsky then explains his ideas 
		by arguments which bear out even more forcefully 
		our supposition that by democrats he means 
		socialists. He says: “From the theoretical aspect, 
	    liberalism may seem attractive to one whom good 
		fortune has delivered from want: freedom is a very 
		good thing. But liberalism takes a very narrow,

purely formal view of freedom. To it freedom con- 
		sists of abstract right, of formal permission of the 
		absence of legal restraint. It refuses to see that 
		legal right is of value to a person only when he has 
		the material means of exercising that right.[16]

The people have no material opportunity for avail- 
		ing themselves of political freedom. The majority 
		of them are illiterate almost in all countries. So why 
		should they treasure their right to free speech? 
		Want and lack of education doom them to com- 
		plete ignorance [320] of affairs of state. So why 
		should they take any interest in parliamentary 
		debates?” Chernyshevsky states emphatically that 
		“there is no European country where the vast 
		majority of the people is not completely indif- 
		ferent to the decrees which are the object of the 
		aspirations and concern of liberalism”[17]....

[329]... In the political survey published in 
		No. 6 ofSovremennikfor 1859, Chernyshevsky 
		remarks, after stating that the movement which

insists on intervention by the German [330] Union 
		in Austria’s favour is growing stronger in Germany: 
	    “we have not been speaking of ordinary people, but 
		actually of classes in which public opinion is 
		concentrated, classes which engage in political 
		affairs, read the newspapers and influence the

course of affairs—that crowd which everywhere is 
		a plaything of self-interest and intrigue.”[18]

The “ordinary people” do not read newspapers, 
		do not occupy themselves with political affairs 
		and have no influence on their course. That is the 
		situation now, while their consciousness is still 
		fast asleep. But when it awakens under the in- 
		fluence of the vanguard of the active historical 
		army, consisting of the “best people,” who have 
		learned the lessons of modern science, then the

“ordinary people” will understand that their task 
		consists in the radical reconstruction of society, 
		and then they will undertake the work of this re-

construction, which has nodirect relation to 
		questions of the forms of political structure. Such 
		were Chernysheysky’s predominant views, which

are to be found in the majority of his 
	    numerous political reviews.[19]If at times 
		this essentially idealist view of politics 
		makes way for a differentview,the germ, 
		as it were,of a materialistunderstanding 
		this is only an exception, quite like that 
		which we encountered in studying Cher- 
		nyshevsky’s historical views: the reader 
		will remember that in these views which 
	    are also essentially idealist, there are

also germs of the materialist view of history. 
		Let us now elucidate with the help of two exam- 
		ples the character that Chernyshevsky’s political 
		reviews had taken under the influence of his 
		aforementioned predominant views regarding the 
	    relation of politics to the chief tasks of the

|working class.|

First example. In January 1862, in his political 
		review, he enters into a controversy with the 
		Prussian liberalNational Zeitungregarding 
		Austria’s internal policy. TheNational Zeitungwrote: “Let the fate of Austria be a lesson to other 
		states not to undertake expenditures that exceed 
		their financial strength. The cause of Austria’s 
		ruin is her excessive army expenditures.” Cherny- 
		shevsky does not like these reflections of theNational Zeitung.

[331]... Such arguments, which led to the con- 
		clusion that the despotic Austrian Government is 
		acting perfectly correctly, should have astonished 
		and in fact did astonish a large number of the

readers ofSovremennik. They produced [332] 
		an impression not so much of indifference to ques- 
		tions of political freedom as of direct sympathy 
		with the obscurantists. Chernyshevsky’s opponents 
		frequently accused him of such sympathies. It was 
		just because of accusations of this kind that at 
		the end of his political review in March 1862

he made the ironical confession: “for us there isno better amusement than liberalism—and we 
	    have an irresistible desire to look about for liberalsIin order to poke fun at them.”But as a matter of 
	    fact, of course, he did not write his paradoxical

reviews in order to “poke fun” at the liberals, nor 
		to defend despotic governments. Basically the

thought was that, while the given social relations 
		existed, things could not proceed otherwise than 
		they were doing and that anyone who wanted

them to proceed differentlyshould devote his 
		efforts to a radical change in social relations.To act

differently would be a waste of time. The liberals 
		evokedChernyshevsky’sridiculeprecisely because 
		they proposed palliatives where a radical cure 
		was necessary.[21]

Second example. In April of the same year, 
		Chernyshevsky again appeared to take the side of 
		absolutism in its struggle with liberalism in the 
		Prussian Government’s conflict with the Prussian 
		Diet. According to him, the liberals should not 
		have been surprised that the Prussian Government 
		did not make voluntary concessions to them but 
		preferred to agitate the country by dissolving the 
		Diet. “We find,” he says, “that the Prussian Govern- 
		ment acted as it should have.”[22]This again was 
	    bound to astonish the naïve reader and seem to 
		him a betrayal of the cause of freedom. It is clearly

understandable, however, that here, too, our author

was not at all taking up the cudgels in defence of 
	    despotism, but only wanted [333] to utilise the 
		Prussian events in orderto communicate to the 
		more astute of his readers the correct view of the 
		chief conditionon which, in the final analysis, the 
		outcome of all broad social conflicts depends.

Here is what he says on this point:

“Just as quarrels between different states are 
	    at first carried on by diplomatic means, so the 
		struggle for principles inside the state itself is at 
		first carried on by means of civilian influenceor 
		so-called legal means. But just as a quarrel be- 
		tween different states, if it is sufficiently important,

always loadsto military threats, so too with the 
	    internal affairs of states, if the affair is not of minor 
	    importance. If the quarrelling states are very 
		unequal in power, then the affair is usually solved

by military threats alone: the weaker state suc- 
		cumbs to the will of the stronger, and this prevents 
		open warfare. In just the same way, in important 
		internal affairs, war is only prevented if one of 
		the conflicting sides feels too weak compared with 
		the other: then it submits as soon as it sees that 
		the opposing party has really decided to resort to 
		military measures. But if two quarrelling states 
		are not so unequal in power that the weaker of 
		them cannot hope to repulse an attack, then the 
		affair may pass from threats to war. The defending 
		side has a very big advantage on its side and, 
		therefore, if it is not too weak, it does not lose 
		heart at the decision of the stronger opponent to 
		attack it.”[23]

It was from this point of view that he examined 
		what was then taking place in Prussia. He defended 
		and praised the Prussian Government—this must 
		be noted—solely because “it was acting in the 
		best possible way in favour of national progress” 
		by destroying the political illusions of those naïve 
	    Prussians who, for no obvious reason,imagined

that a system of genuinely constitutional rule 
	    would be instituted in their country of itself, 
		without a struggle against the old order. And

if he revealed not the slightest sympathy for the 
		Prussian liberals and evenpoked funat them, the 
		explanation is that,in his just opinion, they too 
		wanted to achieve their aims [341]without a deter-

mined struggleagainst their political enemies. 
		In speaking of the possible outcome of the conflict 
		between the Diet and the Government he remarks, 
		with great perspicacity, that “judging by the 
		present mood of public opinion in Prussia, it is 
		to be presumed that the opponents of the present

system find themselves too weak for military 
		struggle and are ready to yield at the first deter- 
		mined threat from the government that it will 
		resort to military measures.”[24]And so it turned 
	    out. Chernyshevsky was right in his contempt for 
		the Prussian liberals. They indeed wanted constitu- 
		tional order to be instituted in Prussia of itself.

Not only did they not take determined action—for 
		that they could not be blamed since, with the 
		prevailing relation of social forces, this was not 
		possible—but they condemned in principle every

idea of such action, i.e., they hampered, insofar 
		as it depended on them, a change in social forces 
		that would have made it possible to resort to such 
		action in the future. Chernyshevsky could not 
		forgive them that, just as Lassalle could not. It is 
		noteworthy that just when Chernyshevsky was 
		ridiculing the Prussian liberals in his political 
		articles, Lassalle was tearing them to pieces in his 
	    speeches. And it is even more noteworthy that in 
		those speeches the German agitator sometimes 
		used the same words as Chernyshevsky to describe 
		the relation of social forces as the foundation of the 
	    political system in a particular country. Lassalle 
		had in many respects the same mentors as Cherny- 
		shevsky. It is natural, therefore, that the political 
		thinking of both tended in the same direction, and 
		achieved results that coincided in part. We say 
	    “in part” because, in noting the greatsim-ilarityof Lassalle’s views to Cherny- 
		shevsky’s, one must not close one’s eyes to thedifferencesbetween them. Lassalle does 
		not confine himself to concluding that the constitu- 
		tion of any country is the juridical expression of the 
	    prevailing correlation of social forces. He seeks 
		the causes which determine this correlation, and 
		finds them in the social economy. Those of Las- 
		salle’s speeches which bear on this question are 
		permeated with a materialist spirit, which is 
		more than can be said, for instance, of his speech

[335] on the philosophy of Fichte, or his “System 
		of Acquired Rights.” Neither does 
		Chernyshevsky ignore the question of the causes 
		determining the relation of social forces, but in his 
		analysis he stops at social self-consciousness, i.e., 
		not crossing the boundary separating historical

idealism from historical materialism. In contrast 
		to Lassalle, he is a far more consistent idealist in 
		his comments on Prussian affairs than in many 
		of his other articles dealing with politics or history. 
		This difference, too, should be attributed com- 
		pletely to the “relation of social forces.” In Prussia,

no matter how weak Prussian capitalism was com- 		
		pared with what it is at present, aworking- 
		classmovement in the modern sense of the 
		word had nevertheless already begun; but in 
		Russiathe movement of the “non- 
		gentry,”which is usually called the movement

of theintelligentsia,had only just 
		begun to flourish. Influenced by the requirements 
		of the working-class movement, evenidealistsare often compelled to reasonmaterialis- 
		tically. One can find many examples in 
		present-day France of how the requirements of 
		the working-class movement exert their influence. 
		The movement of the intelligentsia, on the con- 
	    trary, sometimes drives evenmaterialiststo purelyidealistreasoning. This is particu- 
		larly marked in Russia today.

Chernyshevsky’s political reviews were intended 
		for the “best people,” who had to know what they 
		should teach the backward masses. The work of the 
		“best people” amounted,in the main, to 
		propaganda. But notexclusively. The 
		“ordinary people,” generally speaking, do not 
		figure on the political stage. And what takes place 
		on that stage—again speaking generally—little

affects their interests. Butthere are exceptional 
		epochs during whichthe massesof the peopleawaken from their customary hibernationand make 
		energetic, although often hardly conscious, efforts 
	    to improvetheir destiny. In such exceptional epochs

the activity of the “best people” more or less loses 
		its predominantlypropagandistcharac-

ter andbecomesagitational. This is what

Chernyshevsky says of such epochs:

“Historical progress takes place slowly and 
		arduously... [336], so slowly that, if we limit 
		ourselves to very short periods, the fluctuations 
		produced in the advancing course of history by 
		accidental circumstances may blind us to the 
		action of the general law. In order to convince 
		oneself of its immutability, it is necessary to con- 
	    sider the course of events over a fairly long time.... 
		Compare the state of the social institutions and 
		laws of France in 1700 and today—the difference 
		is extremely great, and it is all to the advantage 
		of the present day; and yet almost all this century 
		and a half was very arduous and gloomy. The same 
		also in England. Whence comes the difference? 
		It was being constantly prepared for by the fact 
		that the best people of each generation found life 
		in their time extremely difficult; little by little at 
		least a few of their desires became comprehensible 
		to society, and then, at some time many years 
		later, on propitious occasions, society for six 
		months, a year, or hardly more than three or four 
		years, worked for the fulfilment of at least a few 
		of this small number of desires which had penetrat- 
		ed to it from the best people. The work was never 
	    successful: when half the work was done society’s 
		zeal would be exhausted, its strength would give 
		out, and once again the practical life of society 
		would fall into a long period of stagnation; and, as 
		before, the best people, if they survived the work 
		inspired by them, saw that their desires were far 
		from having been carried out and as before had 
		to bemoan life’s burdens.But in the brief period 
		of noble enthusiasm much was reconstructed. Of 
	    course, the reconstruction took place hurriedly, 
		there was no time to think about the elegance of the 
		new structures, which remained unfinished, there 
		was no time to bother about the subtle require- 
		ments of architectural harmony between the new

parts and the surviving remains, andthe period 
		of stagnation inherited the reconstructed edifice 
		with a multitude of petty incongruities and hideosi- 
		ties. But that period of indolence afforded leisure

to examine carefully every detail and since the 
		improvement of the details that it disliked did 
		not require any particular effort, it was done 
		little by little; and while an exhausted society 
		busied itself with trivia, the best people were 
		saying that the reconstruction was incomplete, 
		and argued that the old parts of the building were 
		becoming more and more dilapidated, and that it 
		was necessary to resume work on a big scale. 
		At first a tired society refused to heed them, re- 
		garding their jarring cry as interference with its 
		rest; then, having recovered its energy, society 
		began to defer more and more to an opinion which 
		had previously aroused its indignation. [337] So- 
	    ciety gradually became convinced that there was 
		some truth in it, came to recognise that truth more 
		and more from year to year, and finally was pre- 
		pared to go along with those progressive people 
		who argued that reconstruction was necessary; 
		and, then, at the earliest opportunity it set to 
		work with renewed fervour, again left it unfinished, 
		and once more fell into a slumber, only to resume 
		the effort later on.”[25]

Chernyshevsky’s political articles were aimed 
		at showing the “best people” that the old structure 
		of the contemporary social system was crumbling 
		more and more and that there was a need to “re- 
		sume work on a big scale.” And everything points 
	    to the fact that towards the end of the first, i.e., 
	    pre—Siberian period of his literary activity, it 
		began to appear to him that society was more and 
		more heeding his opinion, and falling in with him.

In other words,he began to think that in Russian 
		history too there was approaching one of those 
	    beneficial leaps which rarely occur in history, but 
		which push far ahead the process of social develop- 
		ment.The spirits of the advanced sections of

Russian society were indeed rapidly rising, and 
	    with them Chernyshevsky’s spirits also rose. 
		At one time he had found it possible and useful 
		to make clear to the government its own interests 
		in the matter of freeing the peasants; now he does 
		not even think of addressing himself to the govern- 
		ment. To count on it at all seems to him harmful 
		self-delusion. In the article “The Russian Reformer” 
		(Sovremennik, October 1861), which he wrote in 
		connection with the publication of M. Korf’s book

The Life of Count Speransky, Chernyshevsky 
	    argues at length that no reformer should delude 
		himself with such calculations in our country. 
		Speransky’s enemies called him a revolutionary. 
		This opinion amused Chernyshevsky. Speransky 
		indeed had very broad plans for changes, but it is 
		ludicrous to call him a revolutionary,judging by

the extent of the means he intended using to carry 
		out his intentions. He could maintain his position 
		only because ho had managed to earn the trust of 
		the tsar Alexander I. With this trust to support 
		him, he intended to carry out his plans. That is 
		why Chernyshevsky called him a dreamer....

[338]... Only he who constantly remembers that 
		the course of social life is determined by the re- 
		lationship of social forces does not succumb to 
		harmful delusions in politics. He who wishes to act 
	    in accordance with this basic principle has some- 
	    times to go through a difficult moral struggle.

Chernyshevsky tries to warn the “best people” of 
		his time on this score, in view of what he thought 
		was the imminent leap. Thus, as far back as 
		January 1861, in analysing a book by the well- 
		known American economist, Carey, whose insig- 
		nificance, incidentally, he brilliantly exposes, he 
		unexpectedly passes to the well-known Jewish 
		heroine, Judith, and strongly justifies her action. 
		He says: “The path of history is not paved like 
		Nevsky Prospekt; it runs across fields, either dusty 
		or muddy, and cuts across swamps or forest thick- 
		ets. He who fears being covered with dust or mud- 
		dying his boots, should better not engage in social 
		activity, for this is a noble occupation when one 
		is really concerned with the good of the people, 
		but it is not exactly a tidy one. It is true, however, 
		that moral purity may be understood differently; 
		others, for example, may feel that Judith did not 
		tarnish herself.... Broaden your considerations and 
		on many individual questions you will have 
		obligations that are different from those resulting 
		from an isolated examination of the same ques- 
		tions.”[27]

At the beginning of the sixties the government 
		conceived the idea of lifting censorship restrictions 
		to some extent. It was decided that new censorship 
		rules should be drawn up, and the press was allowed 
	    to express itself on the question of its own repres- 
	    sion. Chernyshevsky lost no time in stating his 
		personal views, which as usual strongly differed

from the usual liberal views. [339] True, Cherny- 
		shevsky himself maliciously ridicules the people 
		who suppose that the printing press has some 
		specific power like belladonna, sulphuric acid, 
		fulminate of silver, etc. “Our personal opinion is 
		not inclined towards expecting unnaturally harm- 
		ful results from objects and actions which do not 
		possess the power to produce such calamities. 
		We think the printing press is too weak to produce 
		social misfortune. After all, it does not contain 
		so much ink that the latter could come pouring out 
		somehow and flood our country; nor has it springs 
	    that, after jumping out somehow and thumping 
		the type, could fire it as case shot.” However, 
		Chernyshevsky admits that there are epochs when 
		the press can he no less dangerous than case shot to 
		the government of a country. These are the epochs 
		when a government’s interestsdiffer from 
		the interests of societyand a rev- 
		olutionary upheaval is imminent. A government 
		in such a position has every ground for restricting 
		the press, because the press, together with other 
		social forces, is preparing its downfall. Almost 
		all the successive French governments of this 
		century have been continuously in this situation. 
		All this is very painstakingly and calmly expounded 
		by Chernyshevsky. Nothing is said in the article, 
		until the very end, about the Russian Government. 
		But in conclusion Chernyshevsky suddenly asks 
		his reader—suppose it should turn out that the 
		press laws are really necessary in our country? 
		“Then we should again deserve to be called obscu- 
		rantists, enemies of progress, haters of freedom, 
	    panegyrists of despotism, etc., just as we have 
		already many times laid ourselves open to such 
		censure.” He therefore does not want to investigate 
		the question of whether there is a need for special 
		press laws in our country. “We fear,” he says, 
	    “that a conscientious investigation would lead 
		us to reply: yes, they are necessary.”[29]The

conclusion is clear: they are necessary because

the time for a “leap” is also approaching in 
	    Russia.

In the same March issue ofSovremennikthat 
		printed the article we have just quoted, there 
		appeared a polemical article entitled “Have We 
		Learned the Lesson?”, concerning the well-known 
		student demonstrations of 1861. In it Chernyshev- 
		sky defends the students, who were reproached by 
		our “guardians” for allegedly not wanting to study 
		[340]; and, incidentally, he also tells the govern- 
		ment many home truths. The immediate cause 
		for this polemic was an anonymous article in the 
		St.Petersburg Academic Bulletinentitled “To 
		Study or Not To Study?” Chernyshevsky replies 
		that in regard to students this question has no 
		sense, since they have always wanted to study, 
		but the restricting university regulations hindered 
		them. The university regulations would have

dealt with students—people of an age when by our 
		laws a man may marry, be taken into the civil ser- 
		vice, or “command an army unit”—as children. 
		It is not surprising that they protested. They 
		were even barred from having such completely

harmless organisations as mutual aid societies, 
		which were undoubtedly essential in view of the 
		material insecurity of the majority of the students. 
		Students could not but revolt against such regula- 
		tions, because it was a question of “a crust of bread 
	    and the possibility of attending lectures. This 
		bread, this opportunity was being withdrawn.” 
		Chernyshevsky declared outright that the people 
		who made the university regulations actually 
		wanted to deprive the majority of those who entered 
		the university of any possibility of studying. 
		“If the author of the article and those who agree 
		with him consider it necessary to prove that this 
		was not the aim in view when the regulations 
		were drawn up, let them publish the documents 
		relating to the meetings at which the regulations 
		were decided on.” The anonymous writer of the 
		article “To Study or Not To Study?” directed 
		his charge of unwillingness to study not only 
		against the students but against the whole of 
		Russian society. Chernyshevsky took advantage 
		of this to carry the controversy about the unrest 
		at the university on to a more general field. His 
		opponent allowed that there were certain signs of 
		the desire of Russian society to study. Proof of 
	    this, in his opinion, was the “hundreds” of new 
	    periodicals, the “dozens” of Sunday schools for 
		adults that were appearing in our country. “Hun- 
		dreds of new periodicals, but where did he count the 
		hundreds?” exclaims Chernyshevsky. “And hundreds 
		would really be necessary, but does the author want 
		to know why hundreds of new periodicals are not 
		being founded, as they should? It is because under 
		the conditions of our censorship it is impossible 
		for any lively periodical to exist anywhere, except 
		in a few large towns. Every rich commercial town 
		should [341] have several, even if only small, news- 
		papers; several local news-sheets should be publi- 
		shed in every province. They do not exist, because 
		they are not allowed to.... Dozens of Sunday schools 
		for adults.... Now that is no exaggeration, it is not 
		the same as with the hundreds of new periodicals: 
	    in an empire with a population of over 60 million, 
		the Sunday schools for adults are indeed to be 
		counted only in dozens. Yet there should have 
		been tens of thousands of them, and it would have 
	    been possible to establish quickly tens of thousands 
		of them, and for at least many thousands to be now 
		in existence. How is it that there are only dozens? 
		Because they are so suspect, so hampered, so cir- 
		cumscribed, that the people who are most loyal 
		to the work of teaching in them have all desire to 
		teach driven out of them.”

After referring to the existence of “hundreds” 
		of new periodicals and “dozens” of Sunday schools 
		for adults as apparent signs of the desire of society 
		to study, the author of the article which Cherny- 
		shevsky was analysing hastened to add that these 
		signs were deceptive. “You hear shouting in the 
		streets,” he proclaims mournfully, “something or 
		other is said to have happened somewhere, and 
		you involuntarily hang your head and are disillu- 
		sioned....” “Excuse me, Mr. Author of the article,” 
		objects Chernyshevsky, “what is the shouting you 
		hear in the streets? The shouting of constables and 
		police officers—we hear their shouting too. Are you 
		speaking of that shouting? You are told something 
		or other has happened somewhere... —what sort 
		of thing, for example? There a theft has occurred,

here authority has been exceeded, there the rights 
		of the weak have been violated, here there has 
		been connivance with the strong—we are inces- 
		santly being told this sort of thing. Because of 
		this shouting which everyone hears, and this con- 
		stant talk, one does indeed involuntarily hang one’s 
		head and become disillusioned.”

The accuser of the students attacked them for 
		their apparent intolerance of the opinions of 
		others, for having recourse in their protests to 
		whistling, pickled apples and similar “street weap- 
	    ons.” Chernyshevsky replies that “whistling and 
		pickled apples are not used as street weapons: 
	    street weapons take the form of bayonets, rifle- 
		butts and sabres.” He asks his opponent to recall 
		“whether it was the students who used these street 
		weapons against anyone, or whether they were 
		used against the students ... and whether there was 
		any need to use them against the students.”

It is easy to understand the impression such 
		articles of Chernyshevsky’s were bound to make 
		on the Russian students. When [342], subsequently, 
		student demonstrations occurred again at the end 
		of the sixties, the article “Have We Learned the 
		Lesson?” was read at student gatherings as being

the best defence of their demands. It is also easy 
		to understand what the attitude of the “guardians” 
		must have been to such defiant articles. The great 
	    writer’s “dangerous” influence on the student youth 
		became more and more obvious to them.

We know already how that influence was removed.

Holding a utopian socialist point of view, 
	    Chernyshevsky believed that the plans which those 
		of like mind in the West sought to realise could 
		be carried out under the most varied political 
		forms. That’s how it was according to theory. And 
		as long as he did not step out of this sphere, he 
		expressed this view without mincing words. When 
		he started on his literary career, our social life 
		seemed to furnish some confirmation, if only 
		indirect, of the correctness of this view; hope 
		arose among the advanced men of the day that the 
		government would take the initiative in reaching 
		a just solution of the peasant question. It was a 
		vain hope, which Chernyshevsky abandoned almost 
		before anyone else. And while in theory he did 
		not, even afterwards, clearly see the connection 
		between economics and politics, in his practical 
		activity—and by this we mean hisjournal- 
		isticefforts—he was an uncompromising enemy 
		of our old order, although his peculiar irony con- 
		tinued to mislead many liberal-minded readers

on that score.In deeds, if not in theory, he becamea man of irreconcilable political struggle andthe thirst for struggle is felt in almost every line 
		of each of his articles relating to the year 1861and, in particular, to the year 1862, a fateful one 
		for him.

[1]See the article “Chernyshevsky’s Aesthetic 
	  Theory” in the collectionIn Twenty Years.—Plekhanov.

[2]Here and elsewhere, an NB underscored with two slanting 
	  lines implies that Lenin’s NB is in the corner of the page and apparently 
	  refers to all of it. The full text of the page in question is therefore given 
	  in such cases.—Ed.

[3]N. G. Chernyshevksy,Collected Works,Vol. 
	  II, p. 206.—Plekhanov.

[4]Collected Works, Vol. I, pp. 
	  97-98.—Plekhanov.

[5]Collected Works, Vol. I, pp. 
	  90-91.—Plekhanov.

[6]Lenin is referring to the following passage in 
	  Plekhanov’s article inSotsial-Demokrat:

“We have never 
	  had occasion to read such malicious and at the same time such a highly accurate 
	  characterisation of Russian liberalism.” (Sotsial-Demokrat, 
	  Book 1, London, 1890, p. 144.)

[7]Ibid., p. 102.—Plekhanov.

[8]N. V. Uspensky,Collected Works, Vol. II,
	  1883, p. 202.—Plekhanov.

[9]N. G. Chernyshevsky,Collected Works, Vol.
	  VIII, p. 357.—Plekhanov.

[10]Collected Works, Vol. VIII. p. 
	  346.—Plekhanov.

[11]N. G. Chernyshevsky,Collected Works, 
	  Vol. VI, p. 150.—Plekhanov.

[12]Ibid., pp. 205-206.—Plekhanov.

[13]Collected Works, Vol. IV, p. 307.—Plekhanov.

[14]Collected Works, III, p. 185.—Plekhanov.

[15]Collected Works, Vol. IV, pp. 156-57.—Plekhanov.

[16]Collected Works, Vol. IV, p. 157.—Plekhanov.

[17]Ibid., p. 158.—Plekhanov.

[18]Collected Works, Vol. V, p. 248.—Plekhanov.

[19]These reviews take up at least two volumes of 
	  hisCollected Works.—Plekhanov.

[20]Lenin is referring to the following passage, 
	  subsequently radically changed by Plekhanov; in an article inSotsial-Demokrat(Book 1, London, 1890, p. 144):

“For the sake of impartiality, however, it must be added 
	  that our author was not only contemptuous of Russian liberals. In excellent 
	  political reviews that he wrote inSovremennikuntil the very end 
	  of his free life, our author constantly displayed the most merciless contempt 
	  for all European liberals in general—particularly, the liberals of Austria
	  (i.e., the Liberal Party of Austrian Germans), Prussia and Italy. As is well 
	  known, in articles on the history of France, he also did not manifest much 
	  respect for the liberal party. All this, naturally, could not be pleasing 
	  to the spokesmen of Russian liberalism and, in their fight with him, they 
	  resorted to the method so often used by liberals of all countries in their 
	  clashes with people further advanced than themselves politically; they accused 
	  him of disliking freedom and even of sympathies for despotism; Of course, 
	  such accusations from liberals could only amuse Chernyshevsky. He had so little 
	  fear of them that at times he aroused his opponents to new accusations by 
	  making believe that he recognised their complete fairness. ‘For us there
	  is no better amusement than liberalism,’ he says in one of his last 
	  political reviews, ‘and we have an irresistible desire to look about 
	  for liberals in order to poke fun at them.’ He then begins to poke fun 
	  at the Prussian liberals who, as he aptly puts it, were angered by the fact
	  that political freedom in Prussia ‘does not become established by itself.’

“This mockery did not prevent the attentive reader from understanding 
	  that it was not a lack of love for freedom that made Chernyshevsky contemptuous 
	  of liberalism. It was sufficient to read only a few of his political reviews 
	  to see how passionately he sympathised with every liberation movement, no 
	  matter where it began: in France or in Italy, in America or in Hungary. 
	  He simply believed that the role of the liberals in such movements is usually
	  very ugly. They themselves do very little and often even impede the efforts 
	  of others by attacking people who are more daring and resolute than they.”

[21]In hisEssays on Political EconomyChernyshevsky, pointing to the lack of agreement between the existing economic 
	  system and “the demands of a sound theory”, sometimes 
	  interrupts his exposition with the question: “Should a system continue 
	  which allows such disagreement?” (See, for instance,Collected Works, 
	  Vol. VII, p. 513.) The reader of Chernyshevsky must have asked himself the 
	  same question on reading his political surveys, especially those leading to 
	  the “incongruous” conclusion that the apologists of despotism, 
	  and not its opponents, were in the right. In Chernyshevsky such a conclusion 
	  was just another argumentagainst the contemporary life. 
	  But the liberals often failed to under stand this.—Plekhanov.

[22]Collected Works, Vol. IX, p. 236.—Plekhanov.

[23]Collected Works, Vol. IX, p. 241.—Plekhanov.

[24]Collected Works, Vol. IX, p. 241.—Plekhanov.

[25]Collected Works, Vol. V, pp. 400-491.—Plekhanov.

[26]Lenin is referring to the following passage in 
	  Plekhanov’s article inSotsial-Demokrat(Book 1, London, 1890, p. 161):

“In the article ‘The Russian Reformer’, 
	  written on the occasion of the appearance of Baron M. Korf’s bookThe 
	  Life of Count Speransky, Chernyshevsky demonstrates conclusively that 
	  no reformer in our country could depend on the government as regards important 
	  social reforms. Revolutionaries can depend on it even less. Enemies called 
	  Speransky a revolutionary, but such an evaluation appears laughable to Chernyshevsky. 
	  Speransky indeed had very extensive reform plans, but ‘it is ludicrous 
	  to call him a revolutionary judging by the extent of the means he intended 
	  using to carry out his intentions.’ He could maintain his post only 
	  because he had managed to earn the trust of the tsar Alexander I. With this 
	  trust to support him, he intended to carry out his plans. Precisely for this 
	  reason, Chernyshevsky considered him to be a dangerous dreamer. Dreamers are 
	  often simply ridiculous and their delusions trivial, hut they ‘can be 
	  dangerous to society when their delusions concern important matters. In their 
	  rapturous bustle off the track, they appear to achieve a measure of success, 
	  thus confusing many who, as a result of this illusory success, get it into 
	  their heads to follow them. From this standpoint, Speransky’s activity 
	  may be called dangerous.’”

[27]Collected Works, Vol. VIII, pp. 37-38.—Plekhanov.

[28]The statement in Plekhanov’s article on 
	  Chernyshevsky appearing inSotsial-Demokrat(Book 1, London, 1890, 
	  p. 162), but omitted by Plekhanov in the 1910 edition of his hook on Chernyshevsky, 
	  is the following:

“With respect to the Russian Government, Chernyshevsky’s 
	  tone becomes more and more defiant.”

[29]Collected Works, Vol. IX, pp. 130. 155.—Plekhanov.